kenneth vogel of "politico" looks at the creation of new democrat and republican super pac's. we will look at today's headlines and take your calls. ♪ good morning. the house and senate are both in today. yesterday, president obama headlined the first white house summit for working families. he said outdated policies are to blame for parents spending too little time with their children and being unable to afford childcare. workomoted higher wages, lace flexibility, and paid family leave. we are asking our viewers to weigh in on the role of federal

government in creating family-friendly work laces. -- places. a call. our phone lines are open. republicans, (202) 585-3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. 3.dependents, (202) 585-3882 2. employers,ne for (202) 585-3883. a very good tuesday morning to you. the headline from the "washington times." employers. there's a picture president obama with lunch with parents.

barack obama called for paid maternity leave and other family-friendly policies during the first white house summit on working families. mr. obama stopped short of , but he a federal plan suggested modesrate steps. here is a little bit of the president from that summit yesterday. [video clip] everyday, i hear from parents all across the country. they are doing everything right, they are working hard, they are living responsibly, taking care of the children, participating in their community. these letters can be heartbreaking because at the end of the day, it does not feel like they're getting ahead and all too often feels like they are slipping behind.

a lot of the time, the end of blaming themselves, thinking, if i just work a little harder, plan a little bit better, sleep a little bit less, stretch every dollar farther, maybe i can do it. that thought may have crossed the minds of some of the folks here from time to time. part of the purpose of this summit is to make clear that you are not alone. here is the thing. these problems are not typically the result of poor planning or too little diligence on the parts of moms or dads and they cannot just be fixed by working harder or being an even better parent. [applause] all too often, they are the result of outdated policies and ways of thinking. [applause] childcare,e, workplace flexibility, these are basic needs.

they should not be bonuses, they should be part of our bottom line as a society. [applause] that is what we are striving for. host: that was president obama yesterday. here is more from the "wall street journal." speaker john boehner released a statement about some of these issues. he noted that the house had passed dozens of jobs bills that would make a real difference for working families. along with that statement, john boehner released a list of policies that he said only making things worse for middle-class families, that

includes driving up premiums for small business employees through the health-care law, mandating a 30 hour role in the work week -- putsin the workweek that 2.6 million americans at risk for having their wages and hours cut. finally, the keystone xl pipeline, which speaker boehner said could create up to 1000 -- 100,000 jobs. policies some of the that he says could help create jobs. what should the role of the government be in creating family-friendly workplaces? our phone lines are open. we will look to twitter and facebook, as well. another tweet from republican

ken calvert. finally, keith ellison, a democrat. we are asking our viewers, what you think the federal inernment's role should be creating family-friendly workplaces. north carolina, republican line. dave. good morning. caller: good morning. thatact that they think passing legislation is going to do any good is ridiculous. problem that the democratic party has always had is that know what ahat they

person, a human being is going to do. but the big thing is that human beings are unpredictable as a culture. laws, you any more know, anymore legislation isn't going to help. host: would you consider your workplace family-friendly? um, yes. i work for the state. i have not worked for the state all my life. i worked in the real world the majority of my life. and mean, you've got to make sacrifices, you have to make adult decisions that you have to live with. in general, is not fair,

but you have to make the best of what it is. , passing lawses to raise salaries -- the money comes from somewhere. nothing is free. is ever handed out to you. it is always earned. if you increase salaries that are not earned, it is cast aside. but if you are not money, then, i believe, you know, you start making different decisions. host: let's go to steve waiting in florida on a republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call, c-span. go aroundlikes to giving things away, giving this away and that away. he never owned a business before. this he realized the cost of what happens to businesses?

have less jobs one that pass all of these things, giving everything away to everybody. that is my comment. host: on twitter. one of our callers brought up the minimum wage proposal the president has put on the table. another issues that was talked about yesterday was paid maternity leave. the "washington post" talks about this. the united states is the only developed nation to not offer paid maternity leave. --did not offer the endorse he did not endorse the leading democratic proposal, the family and medical insurance leave act, that would offer workers 12 weeks of leave is two thirds of their salary and would offset

its $20 billion in the wall price tag by increasing the payroll tax contribution price tag by 0.2%. we're asking our viewers, what should the federal role be in creating family-friendly workplaces? gary is in madison, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. well, i think that any of these things that come down the pike are going to end up being effective when we go to bad things. you try to get these employers to make these different things and it always comes back that it on to whatdd they are selling or whatever and

it ends up being a tax on us. we are being taxed to death here. where recently have seen a electric bills are going up and the hamburger and everything is so high. we just keep adding that and adding to that. can i ask you, are you in favor of a more flexible workplace? of policies that would create more flexible workplaces? there is a poll that found that over half of u.s. workers and nearly six in 10 working parents feel they could do their job better with more flexible work schedules. what is your thinking? -- the boyse that are putting a lot of work in, putting in a lot of hours.

whenever they allow these flexible work hours, they will have to replace them hours with people that is going to have to do the work and then we are going to be sitting there -- it is just, when you squeeze, squeeze, squeeze, it is just hard. you know, everybody ought to be treated the same. you overload the employers at a time when they are already being overloaded, it may be a little much, you know? host: we have a special line for employers. (202) 585-3883. we would like to hear from you this morning. your thoughts on how the federal government, what its role should be in creating family-friendly work laces. -- places. on twitter.

catherine ramble writes for the "washington post" on their opinion page today. and ballgames -- for dads." if amenities -- catherine ramble's piece in today's "washington post." stewart is waiting on the independent line in florida.

good morning. caller: good morning. my problem with these discussions is that i am sick and tired of the mantra and the propaganda from the right wing. we wouldn't be having this discussion if they didn't want to simply -- like that one man said, no laws, we don't want any new laws. they want to just deregulate everything. it is clear that our government has been bought out. congress, our senate, has been bought out by businesses. they have no intention of doing anything right for the workers. hence low wages, the cost of living going up, what you are earn, goods are skyrocketing. host: what is the right thing to do for the workers? what would you advocate? caller: i think most small

businesses -- i am 61 years old -- smallll businesses businesses are family-friendly. it is the corporations that tends not to be. they operate on a different plane, a different planet. they think differently than what most americans want. they cry on the one hand, this is part of the hypocrisy of the right wing -- they cry that fathers need to be involved, yet here we are having a discussion about, since they are not creating any father friendly environments, they totally dropped that and they said the government should not do it. you say you are for it, now prove you are for it and allow something to happen instead of just saying no to everything, just criticizing everything. is i agree with that one man. passing a law is not going to

solve anything. he is absolutely right. you cannot impose morality to laws. on the other hand, you have a republican party that preaches morality and refuses to do anything about it on the run, without being forced -- on their own, without being forced. it is something the american people need to be aware of and vote these republicans out of office. host: robert writes on twitter. jane writes in. waiting in kevin upper darby, pennsylvania. republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for letting me call

c-span. my thing is that the older generation, when they own businesses, they were family-friendly. the new generation is all about money. they want profits, they don't care about employees no more. i work for a company where the owner was a world war ii veteran. when his younger son took over the family -- company, that was it. all he cared about was profit. family. the gone was the family bonus. gone was the christmas dinner. all they care about now is the profit. these businesses and owners today is their bottom line, how much money can they put in their pocket. they're working employees to death. did you stay at the company after the change in ownership? no.er: he laid me off because he could not afford me no more.

he could not afford me because his profit was not as high as he wanted it to be, so he had to lay me off. in fact, he laid off all the people who are there for 15, 17 years and he brought a new kids that he paid minimum wage. host: do you think the federal government should get involved and pass higher minimum wage in some of these other issues, whether it is paid maternity leave? yes.r: the government is the people. if we don't stop corporations, we are going back to the old days. the hotel, they work for them, you give them what they want, that is it. karen is an employer calling in from fitzgerald, georgia. karen, good morning. caller: good morning. host: turned on your tv and go ahead. , there has been a

couple of females and young men who, you know, earlier in their lives they were able to work the hours that they had, but some people have children, illnesses happen, sometimes they come to me and they say, can you put me on my shift or change me to a morning shift because something serious has happened? i have a certain amount of product that i have to put out per day. host: what kind of business are you in? we make underwear, panties. i have men and women working there and they do selling and some the packaging -- sewing and packaging. all time of day, they are asking

to be changed over to different shifts. right now, i don't have anyone helping me right now. right now, i had to lay some of my people off. it is just about ridiculous how so many people who love to change their daytime work tonight -- to night. i have no clue of what to do. host: are you saying it is easier to do with work like flexibility -- workplace flexibility on an individual basis? individual.ink a person has their individual life. host: where are you on minimum wage in the proposal the president is offered on raising it? that's i don't we think i don't think week -- i don't think we can afford that right now. what they are making right now is great. i am doing good on it.

where we live is really not that expensive. from that is karen fitzgerald, georgia on our line for employers. we would love to hear from employers at (202) 585-3883. let's go to leonard in dayton, ohio on our democrat line. good morning. you are on "washington journal." caller: good morning, america. we do have a president to the rest of the world. president obama. to all of the small employers, i would like to ask the ones in ohio, what did they do when they signed the program to send the jobs out of america? retired member, everything you are asking for now, we bargained for that for union contracts and now it is gone. overre we keep going

things that has already been taken care of? uaw did it. host: that is leonard in dayton, ohio. other news. -- areme court decision ruling on the environmental protection agency's efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. ontices uphold limits industry. a sign of hurdles ahead is the story in "the new york times." this story playing out in papers all across the country. the supreme court strikes down part of epa permitting role. -- rule. jeremy jacobs joins us from "green wire." guest: thanks for having me. host: what did the justices decide and how is it impacting the epa? this is sort of a very

complicated decision that signifies perhaps not very much. the issue in the case was the permitting program requiring stationary services to set up industrial boilers, power plants, chemical facilities to obtain permits that required them to install control technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. they did this -- it actually goes all the way back to 2007. epa should be regulating greenhouse gases in the clean air act and that triggered toeral regulations leading this permit regulation. what happened was 12 states, federal industry groups said that greenhouse gases did not belong in this permitting

program. what the supreme court ruled w as the conservatives basically said the epa could not require a facility to obtain one of these permits only for imaging greenhouse gases. emitting greenhouse gases. they did say the epa can require limits on greenhouse gases for a facility that already have to get the permit because they imminent other pollution such as other smog -- emit pollution such as ozone and small. these are called anyway permits. >> what does this case mean for other carbon reduction efforts that the obama administration is involved in, especially that push to lower emissions from new and existing power plants? that was one thing that a

lot of court watchers were watching very closely. to see if there is any indication in this ruling about these recent proposals and the obama administration to set nationwide standards for greenhouse gases on power plants. the obama administration is doing that and that was not an issue in this case. in the opinion, there is hardly any reference to it and the only reference comes in a footnote that that is not an issue in this case. this should have very little impact on the obama administration's ability to go forward with their proposals. however, those proposals -- that is a new thing that the epa is doing. to have that sort of regulation for greenhouse gases has not been challenged in a court before. host: should the epa stay away from those issues in this ruling

with the expectation that there might be challenges down the road? guest: i think that is true. possibility that when these challenges come down the road, which they inevitably ,ill, that the challengers industry, states, could point to some language in this ruling to try to make their case against the new proposals. like i said, it is not necessarily directly correlated. it might be sort of a stretch. came downrulings that yesterday from the supreme court, how did the justices breakdown on this? were there any unexpected votes on this? it was a very complicated vote breakdown. you had the five conservatives strike down what epa did as far as requiring sources to get permits because they emit greenhouse gases.

that was a 5-4 vote. there was another part of the decision in which epa won 7 votes in a 7-2 split, saying that epa could require greenhouse gas but -- controls if they have to get emissions of other pollutants. my colleague wrote that there was is very much something for everyone in this decision. you suck parties on all sides. -- you saw they win parties on all sides. , even justt a win nominally. texas was a party challenging

the role, they claimed a slight victory. there was a lot for everyone to crow about after the decision came out. host: the new york times with one of their lead editorials. in that "wall street journal," a constitutional tutorial for obama. jeremy jacobs is the legal reporter for green wire. follow him on twitter. thanks for getting up this morning with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: for the next 15-20 minutes , we are staying with the topic of the role of the federal government creating family-friendly workplaces following the white house summit yesterday that happened here in dc. [video clip] talented, hard-working people

should be able to say yes to a promotion or opportunity without worrying about the price their family will pay. there was a new poll that found nearly half of all working parents say they have turned him a job, not because they did not wanted, but because it would put too much of a burden on their families. half. when that many members of our workforce are forced to choose between a job or the family, something is wrong. here is a critical point. all too often, these issues are brought up as women's issues. which i guess means, you can kind of, scoot them aside a little bit. at a time when women are nearly half of our workforce, among our most skilled workers, are the primary breadwinners and more families than ever before, anything that makes life harder for women makes life harder for families. [applause]

that makes life harder for children. [applause] succeed, america succeeds. there is no such thing as a women's issue. [applause] there is no such thing as a women's issue. [applause] it is a family issue. and an american issue. [applause] these are common sense issues. host: that was president obama yesterday. we want to get your thoughts yesterday on the role of the federal government in creating a family-friendly workplace. tina is calling in on our independent line. are you with us? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: i'm calling about the guy who called earlier saying how corporations don't take care of their people. it is bs. i have worked for a major fortune 500 company and they have excellent benefits.

i did not have to pay as much. they picked up most of the burden. he does not know what he is talking about. host: do you think it should be up to the individual corporation on how family-friendly they want to make their work vice? -- workplace? absolutely. the government does not know how to run businesses. look at the mess we are in. democrats are not business people. what drives the united states economy? small businesses. what do you think is going to happen if you burden them with more and more? they're not going to be able to hire people to work or they're going to have to cut or maybe go out of business. host: tina in connecticut. mark writes in on twitter. is in boston, massachusetts on the line for independents. caller: yes.

thanks for c-span. i empathize with the caller from pennsylvania. he was a wounded person. he was disappointed that the next generation did not take care of the workers. recentto agree with this caller from connecticut. i don't think the government needs to get involved come only because this is happening organically. a groundswell of support in the larger corporations. the higher up you are in an organization or the more value you bring to the organization, the better education you have, the stronger case you can make to work at home. there are jobs that are indispensable, like people work in nursing homes or hospitals or there are lots of jobs that just don't mesh -- this is simply the luxury of a white, middle-class workforce to work at home -- white-collar, middle-class workforce to work at home.

that is my opinion. the government should be involved with enforcing the laws that are already in place like age discrimination. i have learned through various episodes on "washington journal," that statistics for over the age of 50 are on disability. disability is cloned dashcode for unemployable. -- disability is code for unemployable. this is devastating, not only to families, but for society. these people cannot collect social security until they are 68 and they are strongly encouraged to delay collecting social security until they are in the 70's so they can get more. let's enforce the laws we already have on the books, especially with regard to age discrimination. theers can create

environment where they can work at home. host: we will go to kathy waiting in monroe, georgia waiting on the republican line. caller: how are you? i am good. my thing is obama needs to stay out of the business world. he is putting his fingers in everything he can and he is making a big mess. he chooses to get this minimum wage pushed up, he is going to drive businesses out of business. i have worked at a job, i am a single mom -- i have worked at a job for seven years to get wearing them. if they put the minimum wage that high and i would have work for nothing. to tryings to stick to clean up the mess in the out of the and stay

business world. host: we have a special line for employers. ron is calling in on that line. he is from west chesterfield, new hampshire. thanks for calling in. caller: good morning, good morning. i am a small business owner. i have got to tell you, unlike the larger businesses, it is very difficult to accommodate my employees. , unlike mcdonald's or something, if one of my employees needs to be out for some reason, i don't have the coverage -- it is me that goes in and takes their job and has to do their job, as well as my own, and that can be very difficult. for me to get the coverage to cover folks. it is not that i don't want to let folks off to go to the doctor appointments or because they are sick or ever the case may be, i just don't have

coverage to help cover them. host: one of the issues that was ideaht up yesterday is the of paid maternity and paternity leave. are there any policies that your company regarding that? caller: no. it is basically all on me. if an employee needs to be out for any reason, it is just a matter of, can i cover them? can i find coverage for that employee? because that employee does not get the time off or they get the time off and i worked double or triple to make up for it. i really don't have a lot of leeway. host: would you consider your workplace family-friendly? if so, what ways is it? everything that i can. if an employee needs to be out, they have a doctors appointment or whatever, i do everything that they can -- that i can for

them. if they need to be out for an extended period of time or something along those lines, i have to replace them. i just can't do the work on myself. host: is it more dealing with these issues on an individual basis? would it be harder if there was a specific mandate or law? caller: most certainly. for small businesses, anyway. i just don't have the extra people for the coverage. hey, theforced to say, losses these people need three-four days off for this or maternity leave or whatever, it then, yeah, i think i would be forced to have to go in and work double and triple time while my employees take off. as far as being a family-friendly, i do everything but i can for my employees because they are my bread and butter. i can only do so much. an employer in west

chesterfield, new hampshire calling in this morning. we want to keep you updated on some of the other headlines, some of the other happenings today. here is a headline from "usa today." it is primary day in five states. there is a runoff in mississippi in the senate race. this story from "usa today." susan davis is the reporter. both are expected to face tough primaries today.

we will be talking about those races in the 9:00 hour of "washington journal." we will be talking about these five primaries, the last set of primaries until august. here on capitol hill, a focus on veterans agency is the headline from "the washington post." house and senate negotiators planned to meet tuesday to merge several proposals to enact broader changes at the v.a. those talks are being led by congressman jeff miller, the chairman of the house veterans affairs committee, and senator bernie sanders. you can watch the conference committee hearing on c-span 3. that is happening at 2:00

eastern. happeningening up -- over on c-span 3. ino today, plenty of stories the papers from last night's late-night hearing on the irs. here is the story from "the washington times." aside.ions were brushed here is a little bit from that hearing yesterday. [video clip] >> i asked a question. >> and i answered it. >> so you told us that all e-mails would be provided. when you discover that they would not be provided, you did not come back and inform us. >> all the e-mails will be provided.

i did not say i would provide you e-mails that this appeared if you have a magical way for me to do that, i would be happy to notify you. i said i would provide all the e-mails, we are providing all of the e-mails. the fact that three years ago some of them were not available, i never said i would provide e-mails we did not have. in fact, we will provide you 24,000 e-mails -- >> my time is expired and i have lost my patience with you. host: you can watch that full hearing on c-span.org. we have just a few minutes left on this segment. the role of the federal government in creating family-friendly work laces. should the federal government be involved at all? mike is in lynchburg, virginia. democrat line. i don't think this is an issue for the federal government. this is an issue for labor unions.

the republican party has always been anti-labor union. the democratic party has always been pro-union. it is up to the voters to decide. family-friendly workplace, you need to vote for the parties that support labor unions. in west virginia and virginia, we almost had a war back in the 1920's. over this very issue. of course it was coal mines and the dangers and working in coal mines. it is just up to the voters. have been talking about the poll that was cited quite a bit at the summit yesterday. the harris poll of about 4000 u.s. adults from may noted that half of working parents and nearly six in that 10 working parents have passed of the job that they felt conflicted with family obligations. have you ever passed a big job that conflicted with family

obligations? caller: with the economy and the workforce the way it is, you don't have that option. jobs are scarce. it goes back to labor unions. without labor unions, we are not going to have very much for workers. host: a special line this morning for employers. darrell is waiting on that line in nashville, georgia. darrell is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing? i have three questions i want to talk about. host: ok. caller: first, i want to -- [indiscernible] main thing is that the employees are the bread-and-butter for him. people got to realize that even $7.65 per hour -- i work

for a security contractor. i spent some time in the war zone. i spent some time in the jailhouse. i do security. i'm working 40 hours. to 32 hourse down per week and hired another guy. i am making $7.65 per hour. you tell me? host: what was the reason they cut down your hours? caller: they didn't give me no reason. host: do you have any thoughts on what the reason might be? caller: saving money. host: how are they saving money? caller: that's what i don't understand. some of these companies are doing stuff to hurt.

people don't realize that. host: do you think it relates to the health-care law? caller: yes. even though before president obama rolled out his insurance care, i had to have surgery. surgery did not fit my insurance. that was before president obama 's surgery rolled out. if i went to the v.a., i would never have got my operation done. they called my insurance company and said, we cannot do this operation. host: in speaker john boehner's press release, he cited a hoover institution report noting that the 30 hour rule puts 2.6

million americans earning less than $30,000 per year at risk of having their hours and wages cut. talking about some of the ways that he thinks this white house is not helping families. new work, delaware is next on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. listened to your program this morning. i have a couple of things to say. number one, i don't believe that the government should be involved in any of this kind of thing. been laid offhave since may 28, 2013. my unemployment ran on january. in january. i did not get a chance to get any kind of extension. i have been looking every day for the last year for any kind looking for aven minimum-wage job.

i have not had one call, not one. i have my resumes out there. you know, i just don't understand. thetimes you need government involved in some things, but as far as this issue you are talking about today, they don't need to be involved. you know? host: what is family-friendly mean to you in the work list? caller: -- in the workplace? caller: i was laid off because of the new rules that were coming up in july over competitive bidding. , i was at a job where i felt guilty to take off because someone was sick and i needed to be home. it was just a demand demand. i was in the durable medical equipment for fashion. -- profession. didn't seemed like they

care if anybody was sick. respect, it is my job and i had to be there. i just don't think government needs to be involved in any of this. it would have just made things much worse for the time that i worked there, for the government to be involved in anything like that. i may have been laid off sooner. our last call in this segment of "the washington journal." up next, the options for the u.s. in iraq. joins us and danielle pletka will also be here. pac's.he role of super ken vogel will join us. we will be right back.

♪ >> now you can keep in touch with current events using any phone, anytime with c-span radio on audio now. here congressional coverage, public affairs forums, and today's "washington journal" program. you can also hear audio of the five networks beginning sundays at noon eastern. c-span radio on audio now. long distance or phone charges may apply. powerfulon is a

identity forming mechanism. society isof human figuring out who is us and who is them. who is my group and who is the out group? questionfollows that easily. if you pray like me, eat like me go to the same church as me, you are us. if you don't, you wear them. -- are them. you can see how that mindset can very easily lead to extremism, to marginalization. after all, religion may be the most powerful form of identity formation, but just as powerful as violence. how do you know who is us and who is them? if you are fighting alongside me, you are us. if you are fighting against me, you are them. as far as religion and violence being at odds and should have nothing to do with each other, there has been much more

alignment then we would like to be. aslanigious scholar reszza will take your comments. in the months ahead, former texas congressman and republican presidential cook -- candidate rightsl and children's advocate mary frances berry. we are discussing "the forgotten man." start reading and join others to discuss the book in our chat room at booktv.org. booktv, television for serious readers. >> "washington journal" continues. >> as we have watched the unfolding crisis in iraq, we have been bringing our viewers views and analysis from a number of different sources. we are joined by nora bensahel and danielle pletka.

we are glad you are both here. danielle pletka, let's start with secretary of state john kerry's visit to iraq. do you think it is possible to form a new government? guest: i think it is possible. they have a little less than a week ago before the deadline. the real question is whether the prime minister is going to be able to create a broad enough coalition or whether somebody else is going to end up creating the coalition. guest: i think that is exactly right. i think this is a very short amount of time in which to form a government, something that iraq has taken months and months to do in the past. i do think the crisis gives this a new urgency. the u.s. has basically come right up to the edge of saying to go.liki has some neighbors in the region have said it out right. he is going to have a difficult

uphill battle to be able to convince other groups to join him in a national unity government. host: surprised at how unstable the iraqi political system has been in this crisis that has sprung up in just the past couple of weeks and months? guest: it has always been unstable in terms of government formation. it is nothing new and is not related to the crisis. it is coming at a particularly difficult time. host: do you think that the iraqi political system was designed to be able to handle this? were there flaws in the design of the government? guest: there was a huge argument about what kind of government there should be. the united nations was put in charge of these decisions. they chose a system of proportional representation, which is best known for its results and the italian elections. -- in the italian elections. i thought it was a really bad choice. that is the system they have.

that means there is a lot of power for party leaders, a lot of winner take all mentality. there is also leverage. majority inform a the parliament. that is a real challenge. host: let's talk about u.s. involvement. "the wall street journal" talking about what the plan could be for how the u.s. gets involved. can you lay that out for us? guest: what i laid out in "the washington journal -- wall are steps that are necessary for pushback against isis. the first is what the president announced last week, to send special forces into iraq to help with intelligence surveillance reconnaissance. those are absolutely vital. many americans don't realize in 2011n we pulled out is that we stop sharing intelligence even about terrorism that is threatening to us.

that is important to the iraqis. addition, we suggested that it would be important to conduct airstrikes against isis, staging areas, columns, movement inside ifq and syria, and necessary, provide air support to the iraqi forces going against them. talking about secretary kerry's visit to iraq. what is realistic, what is possible when it comes to u.s. involvement? guest: i think the president is going to be very cautious about going down the path that danni outlined. it is to assess the state of the iraqi security forces, which are in disarray in most parts of the country.

what's the president get the information on that to know which iraqi units are still strong and which are not, where the order of battle lies, it is an effort for us to gain intelligence about what exactly is going on on the ground as well. that will set up a set of choices that the president will make. i don't think he will make decisions on airstrikes or anything else until he has a better situational awareness. guest: i agree with you. i think the president will take a very cautious approach. i am hoping he will not betray his own words. erry and the president said this is a very important interest. you don't have any idea about the iraqi military. we don't know which units are good or bad. less than three years ago, we had thousands and thousands of troops on the ground, we were the key trainers and leaders inside the iraqi military. now we are blind? it is crazy. host: how much time will it take to do that?

some ice is forces are as close to 20 miles from baghdad itself close toorces are as 20 miles from baghdad itself. is there time to make the assessments? guest: partly, i don't know because i am not expert enough, but i also just don't know what the president is thinking about in terms of timeline. secretary kerry met with the prime minister, he presumably laid out some of these things and presumably made political demands, but i don't think we have a lot of insight to the details. guest: there was also would begin its between being near baghdad and going into baghdad. i think isis will threaten that and hold baghdad at risk, but they don't have that many fighters. estimates are about 10,000. they have really been fighting not hadhave -- have to fight all that hard because there is frustration with the prime minister and there is

local support. taking baghdad is a very different situation. it is a really big difference between getting close and trying to go in and take control. host: if our viewers have questions or comments for nora ,ensahel and danielle pletka phone lines are open. republicans, (202) 585-3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. .ndependents, (202) 585-3882 if you are outside the u.s., (202) 585-3883. we will be chatting about this for the next 45 minutes or so. how quicklysed at they have come onto the scene and how much do we know about who makes up isis? people who have been watching iraq for a long time, people who have been following the conflict in syria have known

about this group for a long time. i have been building strength in syria. they have been fighting in syria with a much larger goal that they have announced publicly. it has not gotten a lot of attention in the u.s. press and possibly even the european press. folks who have watched the developments closely are not surprised. dramatic ways in which the iraqi security forces have been unable to do with the threat has been the big surprise. guest: i think you are exactly right. isis is not a new group. it is a newly named group. it is a reconstitution of what was al qaeda in iraq. that was one of the terrorist groups that we fought one we were on the ground. it is like all of the jihadist groups we have seen on the ground.

it is the political problems on the ground in the sunni areas of iraq that have allowed them to of up with the fragmentation the iraqi forces. host: victor has a question on twitter for you. guest: i am always disappointed when the president does not clearly articulate what our interests are because i think americans might rightly ask me are not interested in what is going on in syria and the death of 160,000 people but we are going to be interested in what happens in iraq. we installed a democratic system that has more or less, lately unfortunately less, been working. the elections were largely free and fair. the problem is the president has not made clear what their interests are.

we are talking about lebanon. jordan where the united states has significant interest. this is a region that is increasingly spiraling out of control. worse we have interest. host: respondents were asked, has barack obama clearly explained what the u.s. goals are in iraq? 23% said he clearly explained them. 67% said the president has not clearly explain those goals. as that surprising to you? not surprising to me because the president has not wants to dowhat he yet. i think if you see a push

towards military action, there will be a much clearer statement about why the u.s. is going in and what the objective will be. do think there are objectives going beyond the political regions you mention. has to consolidate, control the territory in western iraq and eastern parts of syria, possibly more of syria, i think in the short-term u.s. interest may not be that affected but talking about a group that could have strong potential to contract terrorist attacks against u.s. allies in europe -- to conduct terrorist attacks and u.s. allies in europe. perfect sanctuary area were isis could dig into training camp and someone and if left -- left unchecked over a longer amount of time, at some point could pose the same kind of threat or even more of a threat al qaeda did in afghanistan before september 11. rex a little bit more.

respondents were asked to you approve or disapprove of the way the president is handling things in iraq? 52% say they do not approve. caller: good morning. in iran and vietnam and czechoslovakia. the question i have is thomas -- supplying the arms, food, clothing and everything for those groups? with all the technology we have aren't we capable finding out where it is all coming from do not have a political solution for that right now, but this is material.

food,rmy's do not have clothing and ammunition, then we should be able to stop all of the mess we have over there right now. you are asking a perfectly reasonable question. one reason why weapons are everywhere is because i romney and on the side of the dictator have been arming syria and has thelaw -- has the law russians have been aggressively and generously arming the syrians as well and continuing to resupply, notwithstanding what is going on on the ground. and anyextremists number of other groups we have owned by thebeen government, by other private individuals. arms flowing from almost every

border. so what we have is the moderate or says. those forces that are less extremists are the only ones that have not gotten any support. the free syrian army has gone very limited support. only now talking about ramping it up. not surprising. in addition, isis has taken over. they now control u.s. weaponry we left behind. the further they get, the more they have. they are also robbing banks. they have a lot of money. with money as a part of the world, you can get your hands on a lot. guest: carol on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i would like to say if the people over there have so much money, since our country is

bankrupt, why don't we borrow money from them to fight another war? that makes a lot of sense. the people in america when they go bankrupt, i do not think they fight theirmoney to neighbors or by guns. why don't the people in washington realize we are in bankruptcy? i will let you take that on funding and to is paying for this? guest: they are finding themselves by now. they have been robbing banks and taken control of all sorts of assets. they have the ability to thrive without outside support now. this is not how they are supporting themselves going ahead in the future. is the government of iraq

going to reimburse the united states for its involvement yangon guest: i would be surprised. we are not mercenary country. carol made be extrapolating from the fact that she sees people hurting economically and are coming through one of the most serious economic crisis with seen in decades but still the richest country in the world. not or what we see in the region, i hope nobody would ever believe we are for rent. line from newthe jersey. good morning. good morning. i had an observation and question. they doubt ifsn isis could be successful attack in baghdad. out our forces

found it very difficult because we have rules of engagement. ,e did not have suicide bombers would not, water supplies, none ofal supplies, these would be denied to isis forces. my other observation is throughout history, relatively forces, alexander the great, world war ii in japan took on much much larger countries and forces and were quite successful. that isis could not siege baghdad, starve them out, cut off the water and electricity, use illegal weapons is all off the table.

who obviously -- obviously you're historical observations are correct. i do not think we believe it is making courage meant into that doubt that where they have been operating up until now is much simpler areas where there are sunni groups, and haveies, tribes encountered much less local resistance. start getting into shiite-areas in baghdad they will confront groups that are not deterred by the rules of engagement and the normal conduct of war. what we saw in the past couple of days was malicious that used haveminate the iraqi scene reconstituted themselves and wrought 10,002 the streets of baghdad yesterday. to theht 10,000

streets of baghdad yesterday. could there be casualties? yes. could they take neighborhood? yes. but i think it is a recipe for quagmire it they push further ahead than they can. interesting is to see how strategically they have moved. much more professional fighting force that i think we realized it was up until now. host: want to show this map theyng the areas where have a operational presence. that is the pink areas. that expanding down toward baghdad now. the red dots in the map, the cities that isis has gained control, creeping closer and closer to baghdad. biggest danger not that they will push into baghdad

and take control, because that would be an incredibly difficult task, plus the prime minister controls security forces and still in relatively good shape. . the big risk is the shiite militias, which are reforming and on the way to baghdad in reconstituting in the southern parts of the country now start taking matters into their own hands and pushing back against sunnis inack against the small communities. you have a recipe for a small internal war that may be triggered by isis moving in. you overlay that soon i again shiite revenge. there are different groups of different factions jockeying for

power. you overlay that on what isis is doing, control in the west, you , none of which have easy solutions on their own. put them together and it becomes difficult to see how you present them to prevent them from escalating out of control quickly. talking hypotheticals -- i don't think so. the president percent in 275 syrians to evacuate most of our embassy. corely have a small or -- remaining there. certainly we face the possibility that our special forces will be put in harms way. i don't think we can ever deny that, especially if they are on the ground advising units. there is anythink

interest, even among people who were strong supporters of the engaging in additional conflict. what we do not want to see is the president sticks its toe in the water and someone fights it away.d we run that is a bad message to send. i think that is why the president is thinking hard about how to calibrate a response that does not draw us back in. guest: what the u.s. will do is support the u.s. sick -- iraqi security forces wherever and whenever possible. we do not know what the strongest elements are but we will not do this directly. we will search and whatever set of options the president chooses . precisely because we do not want to go down the path of u.s. troops involved in direct combat again. everything with the united dates will be how to support the iraqi forces in securing their own country. host: benjamin of next on the

line for republicans. caller: good morning. i had a question. bey mentioned there might air support, things like that that were offered. i wanted to know what your experts were thinking of how we would make sure the information we are given is good before we act on it, because if we were given information and we bomb a school to that effect, it will look very bad on the u.s., because we are operating on potential a dangerous intelligence. host: the job of the 300 special ?orces cap go guest: tha guest: that is right. they do not have eyes on the scene.

they have not had that visual intelligence for a long time. there were always be information about misinformation about intelligence we get, the truth is our troops will be acting and providing guidance based on our own intelligence, which obviously is a much higher caliber. we do not know yet whether the u.s. will choose to conduct airstrikes. it is possible they could act as spotters on the ground providing their own direct view of the ground to provide the kind of incidents were talking about. still relatively limited number. decides to gont down that route he faces two choices. he can either send more advisers to fulfill that role or he can rest and not having people on the ground spotting and then having these kinds of angst that you mention. so there will be a very difficult copulation there that

i think will limit the size of airstrikes the president considers. we have about 15 minutes left with our guests. ei.org if you want to check out the american enterprise institute. romney waiting in southern pines, north carolina, on the line for independents. good morning. i had a couple of points and then a question. some have artie been addressed. it almost sounds like the walls of genghis khan coming down when you read the descriptions in the newspapers and the news. host: talking about the atrocities? caller: yes. and the advancements. my question is, does everybody

when you asked them about whether it is al qaeda, everyone seems to be hung up on semantics. i think at this point it does not matter what they call themselves or don't call themselves. they after tomorrow they regroup into something else. the question is, do we want them to have a foothold in the middle east for where they can carry out what happened in afghanistan and finally led to 9/11? thank you. good: you make a very end of theh at the day of a lot of the groups are very similar to each other. they are either affiliated with al qaeda or are groups that are similar in their aim to al qaeda. i think the distinctions i have

heard, this group is too extreme for al qaeda. when one group tops off another one's head but another group tops off someone's head and then play soccer with it we see a distinction? engagede people who are in total war with no regard for human life or civilian or any of the decencies that we consider important. we talk about them, analyst should understand what the difference is between isis" and the arabian peninsula, but ares not pretend there aims somehow different from each other. host: want to ask you about a ince about secretary kerry his meeting with the prime minister secretary. -- article says

guest: i think iraq is in for a very turbulent political time in a matter what. if the prime minister is able to form a color red dust government, there will still be accusations it is not conclusion -- inclusive enough. several other shiite names that have emerged in recent days. folks who are not quite butliated with malik have served in government positions and may be able to serve -- step into the role. but no matter what, they are going to deal with very

difficult challenges. threat posed with isis, the internal government and forming a government and starting to figure out how to govern in all sorts of other ways in terms of the daily lives of the people, which is what the call is for the new in the inclusive government. going to be a difficult challenge for anyone. host: one of the potential replacements. wanted to ask you about him. honestly, it is like a farce. i have not heard his name in the contestant inble a long time. we would oust a democratic government and push a partyone not part of that prevailed in the elections seems to me to be really bizarre.

he was the head of the iraqi national congress throughout the 1990's. a group created, an umbrella group of the iraqi opposition to saddam hussein. the supreme council for the islamic revolution. all of these groups. there were eight of them. he was the head of that. he became a very controversial figure for a variety of reasons. very unpopular with the cia. became unpopular with the united states government. turns out americans were even worse at manipulating iraq you politics than the iraqis themselves. the ones who are really good at it are the iranians. that is something we have not talked about. they have very serious interest in iraq as well. one reason we have had such as we have until now

not been there but the iranians have. host: back to how the u.s. should move forward. nott: whether we like it or iran will be part of the solution. they have for a long time shared a couple of common and trusts and iraq. both have an interest in a stable iraq not completely engulfed in iraq. there.oncerns any solution for the u.s. going to have to work somehow in conflict with iran. i think they are savvy enough to to keep it stable they need

to be involved. i think they are savvy enough to know the u.s. will still have influence and leverage an better off working with the u.s. 12 entire country't breaking down and secretary in conflict. good morning. war.ember you well for the you and others of the american enterprise institute were pushing strongly to invade iraq. a lot has been made about the surge and how sunnis fought other sunnis. after it was over, there may not have been al qaeda there but the sunnis were seizing because the situation remained the same. was still in power and

still miss treating and excluding the sunnis. when the bush administration had our troops and treasure in iraq, we have the clout and leverage to make changes. iki ton't bush push include the sunnis? it was clear they would revoke because of the mistreatment. how convenient to now blame president obama on the wonders of the bush administration. the collar make some interesting points. thank you. i think what we need to understand is that the prime minister, and i do not vote for him, let me be clear the prime minister when he first came to power did work very closely with the sunni. took a number of very courageous steps. exclusiveness and sharing.

the problem is not really the first maliki elected in the iraqi solution -- election but the post-withdrawal. that is not to say he is a good guy that just wants to do the right thing. because honestly i do not know what is in his heart of hearts. what i do know is when the united states was there, when we were reliable security partner, that maliki was much more willing to push back on the iranians. the problem now is they are the only game in town. we have not been very serious and addressing the problems that have arisen since the withdrawal of 2011. we can sit around and talk about the iraq war and who is to blame and whether it is bush's fault or obama fault and i am sure that is enjoyable for the c-span audience but at the end of the table he -- they we are to

realize there is a challenge we face right now. i believe there is a strong imperative to do something about it and to have done something much sooner. to dore is not a reason something about it. that is for the commander in chief to articulate about it. www.c-span.org there is a -- guest: there is a much more than a mental problem. statesblem is that oil are almost never democracies. there is reasons why countries where oil comes into the central state tend to have authoritarian system and it is because you cannot make credible commitments to share power, even if you as a leader want to come up with inclusive government, there are the office the parties that you want to bring in that have no reason to believe you really intend to share power because the person in charge control the oil revenue.

something well documented in all regions of the world, not just the middle east. there are some exceptions, and i am not think that means every oil state under all conditions turned into a deck hitter ship, in the countrycy temperature cooling for the type of political conclusions that the u.s. and others are now pressing for a party face an uphill battle, and particularly given the kind of security challenges on the ground right now, makes that task all the harder. your piece -- oil, boringct of file clerk ask you -- they have arty gain control, some of the pipeline in areas, correct? oilt: i think you will see

prices go up because of the instability. iran the same reports that isis controls one of the key refineries. i do not know if they will continue to hold it. oil markets do not like an stability. -- instability. host: frank waiting in memphis, tennessee. caller: hi. ain't never been stable. got to sacrifice our brothers and sisters. they spend all their money on warp. they are wracked people never did anything to me. -- the iraq people never did anything to me.

they have never been stable. even when we were over there, they still were blowing up humvees. setting off bombs. it is a race thing to me. [indiscernible] our let the history be told. iraq has been stable for some reasons good and some bad. briefare were times after times of independence when it was stable. unfortunately the problem is just a sub back here. i think we can make arguments about any of the countries having been unstable.

for thelenge here is president to articulate what our interests are. i think it's an average guy in the united states. he is waiting to hear from the president of the united states and the challenge here is like do not- george bush or like george bush, he came out every week and gave a foreign-policy speech. this president has not wanted to do that. at the end of the day, he will have to make the case. he would have to make the argument to the american people, to people like frank, what it is that should bring us back into a iraq into whatever form. that, he will do find he loses support from the people who brought him into office. host: what would you advise him

to say? guest: i think the president has a very powerful pulpit. it is a fight between his ideological preferences, what he wants to do, and what the national security imperative is for the commander-in-chief. he clearly sees we're being pushed into a position. this is always the challenge. timing right now is that. you are stuck with a too little, too late problem. is theree problem here are no good options for the president and have never been good options for the president even going back to looking what to do in syria. we might have a different set of problems if we had intervened earlier. as you mentioned, a region that

has tremendous difficulties. not isolated to one particular country. they are all interrelated. i think with the president is doing is trying to gather more information about what is going on in the ground before committing the u.s. to a task. there is a crisis there, and i think there is an attempt to use decision-making to avoid picking the worst of the bad options out there. prudence is always important in anybody. process isn-making one that lets the situation run out of control, ultimately we decide we have an interest, we are going to have to commit more than we would have had to initially. of course all choices have consequences. at the end of the day these have

become excuses to do nothing. there is another world out there. the iranian nuclear problem. there is what is happening in ukraine, which we have not mentioned. keep going about problems in the world. you cannot spend all of your time thinking about what to do. david is waiting on the line for independents. caller: good morning. i am a veteran also, and i do not think we belong there in the first place. not to long and many of those countries -- we do not belong in any of those countries. we do not need to stow all of our boys over there for nothing. except for oil.

we should not be going around the whole world making wars so it cannot more oil. that is the only reason we were there in the first place. to send people to stop the insurgencies, we will never stop them. the only time we did not have them is when genghis khan was there. host: second reference to genghis khan today. i will give you your chance to respond. guest:guest: thinking about a large ground presence. i think that is off the table politically. i think it is off the table in iraq as well. i think the u.s. does have interest in the region and a

rack that go far beyond oil. threatens it the most is the terrorist threat that from the country. so there are challenges that directly could run the u.s. that will be driving a lot of the decisions. we come back to the same game again, if you're going to commit troops, even limited, you have to make the case and explain it to the american people. then you have to explain why it was they said it was a bad idea. now he needs to do this. while he has support from many people in washington, he needs the support of the american people. that means getting out there and explaining where it is.

does not mean holding back. at the end of the day, you are right, this is not just about iraq. this is about threats to our rootsal security from related to al qaeda and al qaeda itself that have gained enormous ground over the past few years. host: the foreign and defense studies vice president of the american enterprise institute. senior fellow responsible for defense program codirector of the center for a new american security. thank you for joining us. talk to authorl of big money on his big book. the statesng about where there are primaries today here around the country. first, news update. some international news this

hour, former news of the world editor andy colston has been convicted of phone hacking but fellow editor rebekah brooks was acquitted after a month-long trial centering on illegal activity at the heart of rupert murdoch newspaper empire. a jury found him guilty of conspiring to intercept communications. ms. burks was acquitted of the charge and accounts of driving officials and attracting police. an update on the jailed journalist in egypt. the egyptian president said he will not interfere in court rulings. this today after three journalists were sentenced to seven years in prison and a verdict that prompted an international outcry. the ruling on terrorism related ofrges wrought a landslide condemnation that calls for the president to intervene. russia, vladimir putin has asked parliament to

cancel a resolution that sanctions the use of military force in ukraine. just yesterday pro-russian separatist said they would respect a cease-fire declared by the ukrainian president, raising hopes for an end to months of fighting that have killed hundreds and driven thousands from their homes. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> religion is a powerful identity forming mechanism. part of society is figuring out who is us into his them. religion answers that question pretty easily. if you are a like me, even like me, if you go to the same church as i do, then you are us. if you don't, your them. that mindset can

,ery easily lead to extremism marginalization. religion may be the most powerful form of identity formation. powerful is violet. how do you know who is us into his them? if you are fighting alongside me, you are us. par from religion and violence being these things out on's -- far from. they have been much more aligned than we would like them to be. >> religious author his book to series.-depth will take your calls and questions for three hours starting at noon eastern. paul and children's right advocates mary frances berry. discussingg we are

the forgotten man, a new history of the great depression. start reading and join others to discuss the book and a chat room. both tv, television for serious readers. ken vogel has tracked the unlimited money in politics since the 20 10 citizens united decision and offers a look at the new world of campaign finance in the recently published book, big money, to buy $5 billion, a suspicious vehicle on the trail of the ultrarich hijacking american politics. is in regards to conservatives, coke druthers -- want to talk about your story from yesterday in politico. inside the vast liberal conspiracy is the headline from that piece. what is the democracy alliance you focus on?

thatry wealthy liberals get together twice a year that discuss how they can spend big checks in politics. very similar to the network of donors that the koch brothers that liberals like to talk about a whole lot but very similar to what they do. of money they are able to direct you politics is significantly smaller, but nonetheless, they have had a big impact over the years in shaking up the democratic party. taking credit for steering 500 million to democratic party's. story you talk about using pages from the koch brothers playbook. really. especially since it's an united.

big-money political spending. outside groups and networks of outside groups like the becomecy alliance have so important. there has been a migration of political power and money away from the parties in the campaign to the outside groups, so it is imperative for them if they're going to be successful to set up a shadow party structure. what you have on the right are groups like the coke rather's group, like american crossroads, the karl rove group that has spent a lot of money and resources building voter databases, building get out the vote mechanisms, groups that reached out specifically between demographics of the electorate like them if that -- like hispanics. it is similar to the koch brothers.

>> launching a new super pac for the midterm. why do they need another super pac. they tried to stay away from the moreover politics until they come out and say vote for so and so. they probably come away with the same impression it is a political advertisement attacking and no real distinction. this is called kay hagan. ask her why she supports the job killing obamacare ursus an ad that says vote against kay hagan. however they have stayed very much on that side until now. muchnew super pac comes in more overtly and acutely to say vote against kay hagan and her

republican opponent tom tillis. another sign they are entering pollray as a leading center of gravity. are there different rules they have to work under? .uest: they had to disclose there are ways around including routing it through an llc secret money nonprofit. however, i think it is significant they have to andlose to the secret pact are embracing the vehicle that requires disclosure. mayor very secretive and tried to conceal where their money is coming from. the super pac you cannot do that. a partial move to a transparency. in your book you get into the evolution of the two parties

in taking up the mega-donors. you write that rich democrats mostly sat on their wallet early in the big-money interrupt. sideline towards obama and other prominent leaders asked other party leaders. shellacking in the 2010 midterms help them get over their qualms. guest: if you look at the figures just filed with the federal election commission for super pac's, the big-money groups that are required to disclose, democrats are beating republicans at the top levels of the super pac's fundraising since the first time the citizens united said of course -- was set in place. while there are definitely democrats to continue to be anxious and skittish about the role of big money in politics, interesting to note that some of them are giving the same big

money to candidates that will get elected and take the big money out of politics. ultimately i think the effect is the same. whatever your motivation is for giving the money, more money into the process and perpetuates the new big-money sort of political industry that has becoming -- become increasingly significant in determining who wins. host: you can see all of these stories are politico.com. on the trail of the author rich hijacking american politics. here are the numbers for the center of responsive politics. pac's, spending by super $234 million raised total other the super pac's for the 2014 cycle.

you can be sure that will only increase in the coming months. if you want to talk about super pac's, the era of big donor and big-money, and the phone lines are open. numbers are on the screen. catherine waiting in huntsville, alabama on the line for democrats. good morning. is there fayetteville reserves and has there been a research in years? who owns the i arrest? who owns our prison system? that needs to be talked about, to. i will read this guy's book, but there is another book that is out that is real good. about thes talk spending in campaigns and elections, the subject we are talking about here in the segment. no, no. i think everyone is waking up in america.

to who is controlling everything. catherine in alabama. clark waiting in wisconsin on the line for independents. i understand exactly what that lady was singing. these companies put that much money into politics? guest: a very good question. the motivation of the donors is something i look at but if it in the book. as far as companies giving money to politics, i still think for the most part the biggest corporations are the biggest players in the economy. shying away from the outside a wrote about the book. they do so because they are able

to navigate the political process through the bank regulated sums of money to members of congress to oversee, sit on committees or control committees that have oversight over their, business interest in lobbying. they do spend a lot of money in those ways but that money is inside the system. the new money flowing and that has the real potential to cause upheaval and chaos in the political process that is going outside the system to the super pac's and outside groups. ist: james asks if there chapter on unions. fit into thetoo, old style of politics where they're spending a lot of money through regulated means to get out the vote, to motivate members to support candidates they think will be best for the interest. are to some extent playing

in this big-money route. the democracy alliance which we talked about earlier, the big-money organization. the new chair of democracy alliance is the executive director director of the national education association. this is one way in which unions are tying to exercise political power at a time when some of their ranks and the amount of money they take in are on the deck line. and: who is laying the game motivation for why they're getting involved, more from the book -- www.c-span.org what is -- hos : guest: what is interesting is

there is actually a bit of spoke -- quite a bit of sports overlap . the owner and the new york giants -- jets was a very big supporter chris christie. i think the commonality is these are folks who have made a ton of money doing whatever it is they do, whether it is oil or manufacturing or software or hedge funds, and they've run out of things to five. they have all the yachts, private jets they can possibly want. what is next for them? if you are a sports junkie and have all that money, maybe you will go and spend a billion dollars for a sports team. or 2 billion and the case of the guys who just put in the bid for the los angeles clippers, steve ballmer. if you are a political junkie,

maybe you i have friendship with the elected president. as was the case with sheldon adelson when they spend millions each, shelves and out also and $20 million trying to get newt .ingrich elected is the interesting there thetude these guys show, aptitude does not apply to sports and politics. you have these guys, and they're mostly guys i'm affirming around the money suggesting in the case of sport team owners which quarterback gm should draft for which plays the code should all. which issue should be in the super pac advertisement or what debate strategy, and sometimes to a disastrous effect.

you see the super pac setup the sugar daddies that pursue political strategies that backfires. big money and big donors the subject of our topic is morning. junior on the independent line. caller: he is bringing up about the coke others all the time. what about warren buffett? he million..9 another time he donated 2.6 million. if you look up when george soros , i think you will find he is 193 tax exempt companies he used to funnel money down into. what about the big climate control you don't know how much has he donated? stier is the guy he was the increasingly prominent

democratic donor who is spending money in an effort to back candidates that support climate change legislation. the caller makes a good point that there are wealthy liberal donors in get a lot of attention. even more generally, i would say there are whole class of very wealthy liberals who do not give as much money as the percentage of their income into politics as do wealthy conservatives like the coke others, sheldon adelson. is worth $40on, he billion, why did he only gets $1 million -- 100 million to defeat barack obama? that is still a much higher percentage of his income than bill gates for instance who by all accounts is basically a liberal gives to democratic candidates and democratic causes

. warren buffett another example. gave as much money as the koch brothers do. .he fact is he does it i do get into the effort by democrats to court these very wealthy liberals who have not participated, come off assignments to participate in the new big-money politics in the way republicans have. >> how was not looking for 2014 certainly there are folks that have come to the game and a big waste. including tom stier, the retired hedge fund billionaire who has committed to spending 50 million of his own money in 2014 midterm. just on supporting candidates who support climate change legislation. that could be huge. frankly, he is not worth as much as the coke others or bill gates or sheldon adelson, so that is a

pretty big percentage of his net worth relative to the other guys . if you spend that forward, that i think is where it really gets interesting, where we really saw the potential in 2012 for a handful of the super rich conservatives. it he is willing to spend 50 million, $200 million on the democratic candidate who is a more aggressive advocate on climate change than hillary clinton who many of the other gettingic donors are behind, that could be arrested recipe for a chaotic and expensive them a credit primary. [indiscernible] on the line for republicans. good morning. morning.ood i wanted to say the koch brothers are not the ones who started spending a ton of money on campaigns.

the unions have been doing it for years and years and years. for the thank god supreme court ruling and thing god for the coke brothers. i think they have helped make it more equal process. the unions, i would like to know,, how much did the unions contribute versus the koch brothers? the unions for years have given so much money to the democratic candidates, and it is for themselves. contractshese massive from the teachers unions and all these unions that takes taxpayer money in return from the law that they get voted into office.

the caller makes a good point. the unions have been huge spenders and politics for number of years. they will probably spend a couple hundred million dollars in the 2014 election. they spend their money slightly differently. it is true, they have been very of at a particular type of retail level politics for years and years. that is going out to the members, going out to the out to get, going people to vote. knocking on doors. this is an area where the left has had a edge around the right. the caller is right the citizens united decision and the new wave of money flowing into politics has been seen by conservatives upa chance to can't -- catch to the unions when it comes to the ground organization in comes to getting out the vote.

there is frustration on the right about the degree to which the new money has been spent on that type of political activity, as opposed to being spent on the flashy television ads. so, you know, unions do have a real niche in american politics. they are in some ways fighting against -- fighting an uphill battle as membership declines and the union dues to klein. that is not to say they have not been very effective. host: writing and on twitter -- are there any efforts currently underway to try to go back and revisit citizens united again?'

guest: there is a press conference today about senate democrats are rolling out a new reform, son of proposed reforms that would attempt to dial back the amount of money in politics. i just do not see a whole lot thomas for anything like that passing. it is always difficult to pass laws.ce the clinton fund-raising scandal, and the enron corporate contribution scandals. abram laws scandal that led to a suite of reforms on lobbying of how lobbyists could give money into politics. courte seen the supreme dial back some of those laws as unconstitutional, and they do not see the type of scandal out there right now that would generate the public will to the

pre rusher -- put ssure on campaign finance reform. we are in this weird situation where you know folks who want to get money out of politics because they see it as corrupting and a scandal in and of itself. they're secretly praying for a big explosives candle, a quid explosive scandal, a quid pro quo of a cas briefcase of cash. host: we are speaking with kenneth vogel. you can thank mark lieber pitched for this friend of long for this trendrk

of long subtitles. this is my effort to get inside some of these ring tone or -- donors that are getting insider politics. they are essentially holding their own conventions where they get together a couple times a year and talk about which candidates and which groups should get their money, and sort of what strategy. our secret meetings that are hard to get into. i made an effort in the book to get into them. with a vehicle was my own rental -- the suspicious vehicle was my own rental car, i was found out and was escorted off the premises. they reported my car to the sheriffs office as suspicious or

abandoned, they wanted to know what is doing in the closed hotel. i crashed a fundraiser that the democratic owners association was having on the side of the --ocratic governors democratic national convention. i was escorted out by the , and the oneity guy explained to me that these democratic dignitaries deserve the right to congregate in private with the wealthy donors and how dare i try to crash their party. later, he hadup been a police officer, and he'd been kicked off the force for running a prostitution ring out of his squad car. strong-armed onorrity at your da

fundraiser, you look for a retired pimp. like to askuld about mr. stiers in california. isn't it not true that a great majority of his wealth was accumulated through purchase of oil through his hedge fund? the difference between people teyers ending unions is that unions are compelled to pay those dues. a lot of people do not want that money going in politically, but they are forced to. and in the unions end up with a incredible amounts of unfunded liabilities for their pensions. the coke brothers are using their own money, and unions are using other people's money, i think that is a huge difference.

steyer and unions. guest: they are primarily from these dues that are paid in much , that is as distinction. that is a good analogy, steyer versus the koch brothers. ashas tried to cast himself a democratic foil, or counterpoint. the caller makes a point that a lot of conservatives have in -- it has risen on their radar, which is a good point. look's this tendency to for a bottom-line bottom line interested motivation for these contributions. the democrats have really made an effort to suggest that the politicalrs' advocacy and local spending is

motivated by a bottom line interest. ken was overlapped with the causes of a candidate that they advocate for? it is also fair to look at made a ton of money through investments in energy, some of which overlap with the type of advocacy he is doing now. i think that is something the media and the voters are right to look at to try to discern the if there is to see self-interested his motivation. i found it difficult, if i can ake a step back, to draw direct causal link between the direct bottom line and the

advocacy. you also have to look at the ideology. political views of these their that got them into areas of business in the first place, and certainly motivated their political advocacy. i think that tends to be where i look when i'm trying to discern motivations, although it is difficult to do. egg,the chicken and the which came first, the business interest or the ideology? all causes are not a quibble call, and are not motivated by the same values. pollution, worker rights, regular trade bodies like epa, osha, consumer product safety, consumer financial protection about donating to universities, and then determining who the faculty are. how can the democrats alone compete with the republican big-money without the patronage of the big-money democrats? guest: they cannot.

and that is exactly right. they are increasingly coming around to that realization, including barack obama, who in the opening scene of my book i have talking to some of these big donors including l gates, steve ballmer, the cost cofounders. saying that i cannot ,nilaterally disarm almost the same words the viewer wrote in. to see him admitting that and then embracing big-money. as a campaign finance reform, a guy who hung his hat on the idea he was going to reduce the role of money in politics. fast forward two decades, and now he has embraced the money, endorsed super pacs.

his rationale is certainly justified, and i do not think anyone would begrudge him that. there are a lot of folks who believed in him as a champion of campaign finance reform who are greatly disappointed and see him as a ha hypocrites on this issue. go to clara on our line for independents. caller: good morning. first of all, i think influence and money equal about the same thing. that is why i'm calling about organized religion. how much influence does organized religion have on politics? especially light of the presbyterians calling for israel to give up their land for the palestinians? organized religion should play a part -- should not play a part

in politics with their influence. i think that is much of a problem, as much as money. the someone at the irs go into organized religion, how much money they taken? in?ake irs does actually look at churches and other organizations that are organized as nonprofit groups under 501(c)(3) in the tax code. churches are barred from political activity by their registration, by their tax status. there have been some questions about whether churches and other religious institutions have crossed that line into politicking. whether it is a preacher giving up on the pulpit on sunday and

forng congregants to vote someone, or whether sticking full to the polls and voting -- tohether it is taking folks the polls and urging them to vote for someone. they do have power. question,an unfounded it is certainly a place of a virus -- a place that the irs oak usually looks to make sure they are abiding with the tax laws. the message is that campaign finance reform is dead. how reassuring. disagree would not with that. we are in the situation where you have folks who are almost praying for a scandal because they think that that is the only way we can get real reform. the interesting thing there is because of the way that this money is migrating, it is not just migrating from the parties

goingse outside groups, further into the secretive outside groups that do not disclose their donors, it could become harder to prove that there is one of these sensational scandals were -- where donors got , because in return there's less transparency. that was my effort with this book, at the dawn of this big-money age, while some of it was still visible to us, to get to the room and reveal some of the characters who work writing the big checks about some of the operatives who were taking the big money and spending and the elections. even on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i am a democrat, but above everything i am an american. we no longer live in the united veates of america, we li

in the united corporations of america. ourlows me away that congress is now puppets to corporations. host: let's go to gym in north carolina -- jim in north carolina. good morning. would like to identify myself as an independent. have voted in every election since 1960. republicansseven and seven democrats. and what i have learned is that you cannot count on either of them or the tea party. the reason is that power is money, and money is power. and those with the money have money, ande money- those with the

want the power and those with the power want the money. the americans are asleep at the wheel. host: a slightly mixed metaphor, but i think that the tea party is a good example. important, it is not the only thing, but it is certainly important for providing the infrastructure that allows a political movement or a political candidate to succeed. challenger who , heated eric cantor defeated a well funded candidate who was adept at this big-money game. this riemer have between the tea party challenger

-- primary between the tea party challenger and incumbent, and has gotten more support. some ofallowed for these protest movements to really get momentum and get legs under them. and to challenge the establishment in some ways, and it has had a democratizing effect, if a perverse one, where the virtue ofle being able to write a check and be able to get into the process that was always in the back room. seeing a shakeup, we have seen it in the republican side, and i think we could see it in the democratic side in 2060.

16. all it would take is for one of them to write a $20 million a liberal challenger to hillary clinton. watchingare with this big-money fight, but democrats could find themselves in the same place. we want to hear from our viewers about the primaries and the races. but right now we will go to to our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i was thinking that politics was a lot like a piece of cake. the sugar taxes like the to get all the sweet

deals. and we are left with the crumbs. is a sense among a lot of voters that politics is becoming more and more a rich man's or a rich person's game. in 2008 barack obama really tap into small donors and less wealthy supporters to raise a ton of money not through the big-money process. he really championed that, and seize upon that as a new type of politics that he was ushering in. it did seem as if there was the potential for a combination of new technology that allows mobilization of a vast number of people as well as new to create a new small donor revolution was the term we heard a lot. wasyears after barack

elected, we have this citizen united decision, and now big-money as more and more important and the small money is frankly less valuable to some of , it is lessates important for them to spend a time of time cultivating the best nest work -- network of candidate than it is to find one sugar daddy they can find to support the campaign. host: matthew on our line for independents. an answer which i feel is the right answer. adding an amendment to get money .ut of politics we need 34 states to call for a constitutional convention. we can bring the power back to the people, because we do not have the power. veteran,ghanistan

and i see we are losing power surely but surely -- slowly but surely. guest: thank you for your service. i hear a lot of full talking lks talking about a constitutional amendment. it has been a long time since we have passed one, especially one on such a lofty issue. many care deeply about it. barack obama, airing his i amction race, he said if elected i think oil will have the political capital to pursue a constitutional amendment. but since he was reelected we have not seen a whole lot of action from him on that front. and i think that is probably because the political consolation is that it is so

difficult to pass that why should he spend his political capital there? nevertheless, it seems like we're still working to make it work. kenneth vogel is the author of the money, and also the senior reporter at political. thank you for joining us. get an update on the primary races around the country. but first a news update. secretary of state john kerry speaking earlier to abc news says that neither president or or he-- president obama american people want to see a full-scale intervention in iraq. secretary kerry has wrapped up a two-day visit to iraq aimed at curbing sectarian violence.

the president of the kurdish region declared that we are facing a new reality and a new iraq. at the country considers new immediate stepan . in washington, white house official who once worked that the rs is set to testify this morning about using irs e-mails. jennifer o'connor who helped together documents was subpoenaed by the house oversight committee yesterday. her appearance all as last night's testimony by the irs commissioner, who told lawmakers he has seen no evidence anyone committed a crime when the agency lost e-mails that might refer to the targeting of tea party and other political groups. c-span is covering this hearing. for over 35 years c-span

brings public affairs events from washington directly to you. putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house event, briefings, and conferences. and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of rhyme industry. created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service of your local cable or satellite provider. hd, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. in five is primary day states around the country. we will spend our last 40 minutes this morning on the washington journal taking your calls on primary day. we want to get your thoughts on the election so far, and particularly in those states that are having primary races today. yorkado of a maryland, new

, and oklahoma. the runoff in mississippi making the front page of the wall street journal this morning. senatoron the left is cochran. that election is happening. york, a primary election that could and a nd a political career. we would love to hear from folks in those states. mississippi, colorado, maryland, new york, oklahoma and utah.

we will also be taking your comments on twitter and facebook as well. we will look for those during the course of this segment. the primary preview also in several of the papers and the washington times today. talking about the mississippi race after neither candidate won a majority in the june 3 primary. go one-on-oneill against respect daniel who's getting strong port from tea party groups. cochran is also getting stronger committeem the senate . late filings on independent expenditures, if you want to talk about that race today, our phone lines are open.

six things to watch in the tuesday primary is the headline. will thad cochran be the first to lose? serving his final senate term thanks to his failure to secure a majority in the ebs runoff -- pre vious runoff. most mississippi operatives are not counting cochran out until the votes are counted tonight. c-span will be bringing you the speeches for both of those candidates. you can check back tonight to theh their reactions and

speeches. we are talking about primary day around the country. we're taking your calls and comments. let's go to susan, waiting in new york on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. primary day for the 22nd district in central new york, where jobs are very hard to come by. you have congressman richard hanna, and newcomer claudia. a lot of moneyatd from the patriot act. it is a critical time for this country that every vote counts, and everyone should get out and vote. across this country, it is a freedom that we have. got about 20annah

flyers from this super pac group. bullying.ed host: how do you go about fact checking these ads? [video clip] lot of research. went on the new york state website to see how they voted. the fact check was true that the was handlinghat congressman hanna was all lies.

campaigns targeting people, it is bullying. a liar in abody campaign ad or in a flyer that we get, and we are inundated is really a turnoff. i think voters are turned off by the trashy, violent ads that target this money. host: one of the states where takingmaries are place today. now let's go to new mexico. good morning. caller: good morning. we had our primary about a month a very finegot gentleman as attorney general. democrat, a partyline a generational democrat.

his dad was a democratic politician here in new mexico. he went out with the bone cancer patients and the signatures parties are suing to keep them off the ballot. by the time they had their late, and heas too will not be printed on the ballot. we are dispossessed by money and politics, jerry mattering -- gerrymandering, and we are indentured service i feel like. we are politically dispossessed in mainstream america. headlines are some from mississippi papers. decision day, turnout unpredictable in gop senate

runoff. and then here is the clarion ledger, now it is up to the voters. movement has awakened daniels. cochran the. cochran'sry for -- experience is necessary says another article. john is on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. now that i am retired i have time to sit and watch stuff on fox and on c-span. there are is a lot of things that have been going on, and my goodness we do not know why have been voting, and then all of the sudden he wants another term. he should have been telling us

what was going on years ago, and made it clear. i am an independent now because you cannot tell which way to go. host: that is john in mississippi. now i want to bring in emily from the associated press. a political reporter that has been covering this race. thank you for joining us. latest on the polling on this race? is there any sense of momentum in this runoff? a postit seems to be race at this point. there are a number of polls that have been out on this, and i have been on the road with the candidates the last several days. my guys are working hard, there's a lot of uncertainty. host: can you talk about the money that has gone into this three-week sprint to the runoff?

who are some of the outside groups that are playing in this race? guest: the u.s. chamber of commerce has spent some money on behalf of thad cochran. the senate conservatives fund, and the tea party patriot conservatives fund have also spent money on behalf of mcdaniel. actionhe club for growth has a new ad talking about senator thad cochran, saying that he is not entitled to a lifetime seat on capitol hill. we'll play that. [video clip] what has happened to thad cochran. yet served well, but after five decades he has lost touch. in mississippi, he refuses to debate, hides from voters, and ows mud.t -- thr

he is not entitled to a lifetime seat. experience versus entitlement to a lifetime seat seems to be a theme that we have seen played out not just in the three-week sprint but also in the runoff to the primary in the first place. guest: absolutely. mcdaniels announced his candidacy last front, he said right up front that thad cochran has been in washington as long as he has been alive. and it is true, and it is a theme he has come back to repeatedly. camp has the cochran come back repeatedly to a theme emphasizingaign, his influence, his seniority on capitol hill. it is something that john mccain was talking about in that story.

were you there for the speech and the endorsement of thad cochran? my colleague was on that event yesterday because i was before to cover the candidates. host: here is one of those ads were he emphasizes this. [video clip] cochran.had is abouttion mississippi is tomorrow. i can do more for mississippi. byuuilding,g, -- military bases, leadership has made this happen. let's keep them working for us. mississippi is worth fighting for. emily joining us to talk

about this race. we do you know what -- do we know where thad cochran will be today, and mcdaniels as well? to do he does not have anything but be out among the supporters today. voting, and then after that he is making a number of appearances. oft: what reasons mississippi are you going to be watching as the results come in? increasing in be the jackson area, looking for -- the jacksonncts in area, looking to see if there is a wrong turn out in the democratic areas. event.be at the mcdaniel host: thank you for joining us

this morning on the washington journal. i hope it is not too late of a night for you as you're watching this today. talking about primary day happening in five states, and then that runoff that we were talking about in mississippi as well. or is the baltimore sun story. gubernatorial race taking place in maryland. make final forces for support as experts forecast low -- turnoutolls today at polls today. the senate republican riemer and in oklahomaary expected to have a good turnout. keep talking about

the primaries that are happening around the country, but right here in florida in district 19 where we have a congressman by the name of trey radel, you may recall him working in congress until he got busted for cocaine. the 24th of today, june, and having our special election which has cost us a great deal of money. gop has a primary of their own which was not reported as well nationally as it was here which was one of the dirtiest campaigns i have ever seen. democrats to get out and vote today, freeman could use your vote to get into

congress. it would be wonderful to have a woman representing florida 19. you, roll callk is reporting on this race and says that the general election tric -- this t district is a formality. what is your impression? do not playnumbers out. if you just look at the democrats, and you just look at republicans, you are probably correct. but the number of independent a alongn this district, theythe democratic voters, can change the face of the 19th district. host: dennis calling from

florida. our line for independents. good morning. caller: i just wanted to make a comment and an observation. i was watching earlier and there who made a very about theng remark viewers of the c-span. speaks c-span actually the polls of american people. in thesenk the people other institutions are very biased, and not in touch with people that c-span presents. , 9/11ed to make a comment

came, and then3 these current problems in iraq. our intelligence agencies are sleeping. they did not connect the dots, and we have another problem. in 1991 the gulf war started. war.03 the second gulf and now this is almost a third one. taking theirn uniforms off over there, they do not even fight. if the iraqi army has done for the past three times of behavior just running away -- host: we're going to focus for the next 20 minutes on the primaries. we talked about the issue of iraq for about 45 minutes this

morning and we want to give as much time as we can to callers who want to talk about riemer a day -- primary day. the front page of the tulsa world noted in their article that there is a decent turnout of voters expected. -- ais a review on that preview of that from the washington times. the crowded gop primary fight for the seat of retiring senator tom coburn, who is two years left in his term has become a battle between james lankford and former state house speaker tw shannon. it will be a closely watched race that we will be watching tonight.

to kenny in mississippi. will be voting for thad cochran today. he has done a good job, he has wrought a lot of jobs to brought a lot of jobs to mississippi. we have a mall with his name on it. confirmed two african-american judges, so he has done a good job. i think all americans should vote for him today. host: for a little bit more on go tolahoma race, let's tulsa world staff writer randy. thank you for joining us. race, what do we

know about the latest polls here before primary day? caller: the tulsa world had one from two a broadcaster television stations also had one network and the and in different were-- also had polls that done in different ways. they all essentially said that langford has a lead of some sort , and that is what the campaigns are thinking as well. it is somewhere between three and seven points. so now the question is whether langford will be able to get enough votes to win today, or if we go to a runoff. host: how does the runoff process work? caller: in oklahoma you have to win.0% plus 1 to

there are actually seven names on the ballot today, and the top the double go to a runoff on two will go the top to a runoff on august 26. host: and what is happening in the race to replace congressman langford in his seat and obama -- in oklahoma? that is a free-for-all down there. his disturbed is oklahoma city basically -- district is oklahoma city basically. the independents do not have a primary. it will probably be a republican. there are a number of well-known candidates in the primary. this will be the third time that they have

elected a new member. and every time it has been a really tough primary. i think right now the feeling is that the two leaders are a woman , who worksce douglas with a regulatory body in the state, and a man named steve russell who is a senator, and had a distinguished military career. he was involved in the capture of saddam hussein. writerandy is a longtime with the tulsa world. where will you be tonight? caller: oklahoma city. i will probably be several different places, trying to get as much as i can. i will be focusing on the senate race. host: thank you for joining us this morning.

we will look for your story tomorrow morning. we have about 15 minutes left to talk about primary day in about five states. we are looking for your comments and questions. we will be looking on facebook and e-mail as well. people keep- if sending these thieves and do nothing spectrum progress, they deserve the resulting outcome. it is essential to restore the power of average folk. power is now in the hands of rich extremists. without control of the house, obama would have free reign. we are taking your views and comments this morning. having primaries are colorado, maryland, new york, oklahoma and utah. and that special election in

runoffippi as well, the and the special action for trey radel's seat. linda, on our line for independents. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about congress and our senators that are still in office after 40 or 50 years. we need to let this new generation come in with the right innovative ideals and live in the 21st century and stop trying to do things like the did 50 years ago. the world has changed. i hope the republicans are getting the message. ideas, the new young instead of trying to promote old people like these 40 and 50-year-old sitting around

messing up the world. host: it sounds like you're advocating for term limits. how many years do you think it should be before you have to go? terms is enough. it should be enough from the top all the way down to the bottom. these people get entrenched, they take everything for granted. script?t we flip the and they will wake up and realize what time it is. houston,will go to texas. good morning. caller: good morning. this v.a. thing, and these primaries. these all additions are long-term politicians, and our country is in the worst shape it has been in a long time. politicianse these

get up there and they get to where they cannot be removed, and they take advantage of everything and every situation. you have this guy in mississippi, in this primary, and you have mccain. ve the skies who have been in washington all their lives and i know there are countless others. host: what about your representatives? do you like the job they are doing? caller: not really. we need a complete shakeup up there. anybody who's been in washington for 20 years, and our country is in the shape it is in, and we reelect these politicians, i do not understand. i do not understand how you can vote them back into office, when the republican or democrat, or

independent. andmccain is a veteran, arizona is one of the biggest veteran problems that we have. you would think he would find eree time to go in th during his normal run in arizona and check out that the -- , on 2:00pening today p.m. on c-span three will be covering the veterans health care conference committee that is meeting with members of the house and senate as they work out the differences between their respective health-care bills. that is happening at 2:00 p.m. thea wrapup of some of other primaries taking place, especially that high profile one in new york we want to bring in nathan gonzales, deputy editor of the rothenberg political report. thank you for joining us. how much trouble is charlie

rangel really in? he is very vulnerable, but we have known that for two years. the same opponents, he won a 5%, which was a close call. he's facing a similar dynamic again. there is a danger of saying he survived once, so why was he he winis time -- won't this time? the twoopponent has had years to improve their ground game. so i would not be surprised with either outcome at this point. poll that showed him up by 13 points, but they are

not raised by that because they think their ground game is simply superior. when it comes today, they think they will pull it out. host: did that unexpected loss by eric cantor and his race and urging you -- his race in virginia casts some doubt in these polls? caller: i have always tried to be cautious about projecting primaries because they are is somewhat more volatility. i think it's healthy to take these polls with a grain of salt as well. before doing that even the big cantor loss. host: the baltimore sun, cast voters, ther headline.

caller: there are three candidates for the race, anthony brown has consistently been the front-runner. brown has been consistently had in the polls,d but most of those are a few weeks old now. and in that time all three have had a presence in the tv market. ads seeing these maryland , experiencing the race in a new way. oks like the front-runner, but we will have to see how it pans out. host: we have been asking our callers to give us their take on these races, especially if you are in these states like mississippi, maryland, and new

york where they are happening today. also colorado one of these states that is on the map today. -- ais an article candidate for governor has both parties on alert. who is tom 10. tancredo? caller: he is known for his polarizing views on immigration, so there is concern on the republican side and glee on the thecrat side if he is candidate because it will be to winr mike coffman reelection in the six district. if you read the last couple of paragraphs, it does not sound like he is a candidate with momentum.

he sounds dejected about his chances coming into today. republicans, none of them have been able to pull away in terms of money or polling, so there's volatility there. host: how does the rothenberg political report rate that race? caller: we still have cooper with the advantage. it appears to have recovered. a lot of the attention is focused on the senate race .etween gardner host: if you want to check out the ratings you can find them online. what other races are you watching today? ofler: there is another trio

house primaries in new york. .here's a republican primary the preferred candidate of republican strategist in the they want him to take on tim race has been very nasty. i think you might see republicans walk away from competitive districts. you had a caller mentioned the , but now we know from the eric cantor situation that raising a lot of money is not a prerequisite, so i think that is a race to watch because hanna has a connection to the district as a businessman. he is really a moderate to liberal republican. there is that dynamic. also in the 21st district, this is upstate new york, bill owens

is retiring. there is a competitive between atprimary matt.nd there is a divide on who republicans think is the best candidate. that could have general election because he has run and lost before. host: one of seven listed as a pure tossup heading into november by the rothenberg political report race ratings. we also want to ask you about that potential special election in florida. democrats could possibly take

over that district in the fall. wordy you have that district? caller: we agreed is safe for republicans. this was the one that mitt romney carried when he lost florida state wide. freemen had about $22,000 in the bank at the beginning of the month, and we are hearing knono buzz about it. she we need to have support from outside groups to help fuel her campaign, and it would be the biggest surprise since a couple weeks ago with eric cantor. at kirk lawson is the significant favor to come to clawson is thet significant favorite to come to

congress. host: we have time for just a few more of your comments and questions on today's washington journal. we want to hear your thoughts on primary day around the country. the last set of primaries until august. bob, on our line for independents. good morning. are you with us? there.t think he is if you have a question or comment we can look or it on the report twitter -- for it on facebook or twitter. ix things to watch -- is it's ladies night in the house gop? up -- twove teamed

lady candidates that have a chance of increasing the net number of women in the house. and of course in new in the 21st disk dirt -- district, there is a face-off. that is all the time we have this morning on the "washington look for those results tonight and our coverage of the mississippi senate primary. washington, d.c., june 24, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable glenn thompson to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives.